| |
Larry let me say that I'm proud of you for standing up for yourself, and
believing in your own ideologies.
To all the rest, why do you really care about Larry's opinions?
Honestly, he's not going to change his mind, so why haven't all of you given
up?
I don't agree with Larry, but I'm not going to argue with him. I usually don't
agree with a *lot* of statements made on off-topic.debate, but I still don't
care. I know what political system *I* align myself with, and it just so
happens to be on the left. Do I actually care if other people think I am wrong,
hell no! ;-)
BTW yes, I do realize this is off-topic.DEBATE, and all of you have the right
to argue with each other... But this debate is, IMHO, going nowhere.
;-)
Mladen Pejic, over and out!
http://www3.sympatico.ca/mladenpejic/
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> >
> > > I would revise that statement to say "The existence of US sanctions
> > > against Cuba prevents us from determining with certainty whether Cuban
> > > Communism would fail or succeed in the absence of those sanctions."
> >
> > Perfect! That's the main idea.
>
> Maybe you should have said that in the first place instead of Standard Anti
> US Diatribe # 8294, then.
>
> However it's not a statement that I agree with, except inasmuch as it's not
> possible to determine with certainty (from any real world example) that
> Communism is a failure, because you can always identify some impurity, some
> external influence, some situation that you can hang your explanation for
> why it didn't work this time, if you're so inclined.
>
> To be fair, the same is true of any real world application of any economic
> theory. So I suppose I ought to trot it out whenever anyone says anything
> bad about capitalism... the system you're referring to when you say bad
> things (whatever system it happens to be) isn't a "perfect example" because
> of "factors X Y and Z".
>
> But I'm not looking for certainty to that level by examining real world
> systems. I'm perfectly satisfied that Communism will never work purely on
> theoretical grounds. There are a number of arguments that can be advanced.
> Because I'm currently rereading Friedman, I currently prefer utilitarian
> ones, but there are lots of flavors.
>
> Further, I'm satisfied that this particular hybrid of Communism and whatever
> else in Cuba has failed. Badly. Bandy statistics about all you like, but it
> fails on utilitarian tests. The people don't like it, else they wouldn't be
> trying to flee, and the government knows it, else it wouldn't be putting
> them in mental institutions. I especially feel bad for those people who are
> denied goods (medicine, transportation, good housing) so that they can be
> sold to tourists instead.
>
> Further I am satisfied that the sanctions have at best a minor impact on
> this failure. I'd like to see them stopped. I agree that they'd remove a
> prop from Castro. But I don't see them as the entire or even major reason
> for anything failing or succeeding. You give the US too much credit here.
>
> There has never been a pure Communist system ever. But the closer we get,
> the worse the system seems to perform. There has never been a pure
> capitalist system, ever. But the closer we get, the happier people seem to
> be and the better off they seem to be and the more choices they seem to have
> and the more they get to speak their mind and move from place to place and
> hold whatever belief they choose. (oh, sorry, remove "seem". They ARE happier)
>
> That's a good enough argument right there, pragmatically, against communism
> and in favor of capitalism. One doesn't work, the other does.
>
> Communism is based on the premise that some central mechanism can determine
> the right quantities of everything for everyone, obviating the need for
> individual choices. It's based on the premise that people should work hard
> and not get the fruits of their labors, but rather suffer the consequences
> of the central mechanism's mistakes.
>
> Capitalism is based on the premise that no central mechanism can do as well
> at determining the right quantities as well as individual choice. It's based
> on the premise that people should work hard or not, as they choose, and
> suffer the consequences individually.
>
> That makes capitalism moral and communism immoral. That's a good enough
> argument right there. Further, you can show from a utilitarian basis that
> central mechanisms fail (and markets work) to maximise utility. That's a
> good enough argument right there.
>
> Finally, communist states seem to have the nasty habit of territorial
> aggrandisement. That's a good enough argument right there.
>
> Any one of these is good enough for me but they're all valid. Pragmatic,
> utilitarian, moral, and national defense based reasons. What more do you need?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) Because, as wise spin doctors through the ages have said, the purpose of debate (and even .debate!) is *not* to persuade the other party--rather, it's to persuade the spectators, those who do not feel so strongly in X or Y direction and (...) (23 years ago, 29-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) Maybe you should have said that in the first place instead of Standard Anti US Diatribe # 8294, then. However it's not a statement that I agree with, except inasmuch as it's not possible to determine with certainty (from any real world (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
